An article
in "Dive Training" magazine and another in the presumably more
authoritative "Science" magazine provide food for thought about
interactions between humans and fish. The "Dive Training" article
discussed conflicting scientific assertions about whether fish can feel
pain. The "Science" article evaluated whether recreational fishing
has a negative impact on marine fish populations. Tuna will evolve wings
and fly before either issue gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

In the studies
addressing whether fish feel pain, the snouts of rainbow trout were injected
with bee venom. The fish reacted negatively (big surprise). When morphine
was injected into the snouts, the fish stopped responding, suggesting
that bee venom was not enjoyable and the morphine offered relief. Another
scientist poo-poohed the study (although the terminology used was a bit
more scientific than that) by pointing out that trout do not feel emotions
because their brain is the size of a short, thin piece of spaghetti. So
the other position in the "do fish feel pain" debate was that
whatever discomfort fish might experience, they do not feel "pain"
the way humans do. Who's right?

Meanwhile,
another issue is whether we will still have fish left in the ocean to
feel pain if they can. Fish conservation for many species is of vital
concern, and the "Science" article declares that recreational
fisheries can sometimes have a negative effect on certain species, such
as red drum and red snapper. The authors note that recreational fish management
regulates the number of fish a person can catch each day but does not
restrict how many people can go fishing. According to their assessment
of fish species of concern, recreational anglers are responsible for almost
two-thirds of those landed in the Gulf of Mexico; commercial fisheries
account for slightly over one-third. A study of this nature will be criticized
by recreational fishermen who deem their impact well below that of commercial
fisheries.

I asked
J. D. Willson of the Savannah River Ecology Lab to offer his opinion on
the recreational fishing study. J. D. is both an objective scientist and
a consummate recreational fisherman. Here is his position on the topic.

"Recreational
fishing certainly affects fish populations, and recreational anglers need
to be mindful of regulations and wasteful overharvesting. However, a key
difference between recreational and commercial fisheries lies in the ability
to effectively implement regulations such as size or bag limits. Most
commercial fisheries use trawl nets that scour the sea floor, capturing
everything in their path and destroying habitat. When the net is retrieved,
most animals captured (including dolphins, sea turtles, young fish, and
other nontarget species, in addition to fish being targeted) are dead
or dying and will not recover if released. Recreational fishermen can
release their catch, and most fish survive being caught, allowing size
and limit regulations to be effective. Many recreational fisheries have
recently moved to slot size limits, which allow fishermen to keep a few
mid-sized fish, while protecting juveniles and large, spawning adults.

"These
types of regulations are virtually useless in commercial fishing because
most fish are dead long before they can be 'released.' The 'Science' article
fails to mention that the reason for a high proportion of recreational
landings of snapper, rockfish, and red drum is because of previous commercial
fishing pressure and the killing of young fish in nets set for other species
(particularly shrimp), which prompted a near ban on commercial fishing
for these species. Also, the economic value of recreational fishing should
not be overlooked. Fishing is a major draw of many tourist destinations
whose economies are fueled by fishermen's purchases. When you take into
account money spent on fishing gear, boats, guides, and licenses, every
fish caught by recreational fishermen generates much more revenue than
a commercially caught fish."

Animal rights
advocates are concerned about pain, and some environmentalists think recreational
fishing has a negative impact on fish populations. Agreement on either
topic is unlikely. One consideration in the broader ecological question
is that letting people fish recreationally does more good for the environment
than it causes harm to fish populations. What other group of people is
going to fight so hard to assure that we have clean waters and therefore
healthy, and edible, fish?